by Bart Arondson

submit your photo

Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged


Depending upon how the television company came across your photo, they may have no idea whether you are a professional who expects to receive good money for your work, an amateur who lucked into a really nice photo and would be delighted just to see his work on television, or something in-between. Further, while it's possible that your photo was uniquely ...


Regardless of the request, the TV station was so disingenuous with you, I'd almost simply recommend walking away. That is, at first they only offered the minimum legal amount for a transaction ($1) then they increased their offer to $50, that they clearly had when they first spoke to you. Now they are crying poverty. I'd just say "No, thank you" OR .... ...


Yes, you're right to insist on being properly compensated. And since they started out with such an insulting, low-ball offer, the TV show is probably not a worthwhile place for your photo. Maybe other opportunities will come along, maybe they won't. But in the meantime, you don't want to die from "exposure" (pun fully intended).


They are being predatory. You don't have to license anything to them. I would turn that down, and I would tell them to have fun finding usable photography from someone willing to work that cheap, and to come talk to me again when they wanted to pay pro rates. It's not worth your time to waste time on this stuff. That said, a couple of other notes. You ...


I would not let this opportunity escape. I would offer them a payment to use my photograph or accept their 1 dollar offer. I would see if I could add a ghost-logo to the image. Ask if I could be listed in the program credits. This is networking move. A speck on the field of potential recognition.


Don't sell a license for less than you think it is worth, but also carefully consider what it is worth. If they are asking for a single use license for one live airing for background usage, $50 might not be too far out of line for a stock photo usage. If they aren't asking for re-print rights or even something they will be using as a major portion of the ...


Disclaimer: I have NO professional experience at all. The best response is the response that you feel most comfortable with, and the response that most fits your purpose as a photographer. If you are an amateur who has other sources of income you may simply decide that you will sell it for the maximum that the company is willing to buy it for (or maybe ...


Sell the photo for what you think it is worth and not a dollar less. I certainly wouldn't sell a photo for $1*, maybe not even $50*... it'd cost more in paperwork than the sale gains. (* - well it would be GB Pounds in my case). You could always ask them to exchange the usage rights of the photo for (insert number of) seconds commercial slot. When they ...


Absolutely disagree with TFuto, so wanted to chime in as well. The photo is not just your work, but more importantly your product. They are the buyer and you're the seller/supplier. You're standing in a world where everybody can make photos, so the supply of photos is incredible great and on top of that there is (nearly) no cost 'per copy sold'. Point in ...


You have all the rights to your photos, and you do whatever you please to do with it, including suing the hell out of them if they use it against your will. Never EVER go into an argument about the value of your photo. You set the price, and that's it. Either they accept it or not. Do not react to any further comments from them. Especially, if that is a TV ...


See my response about a similar topic of how to charge for a photo. "I was asked to design a calendar using my photos, what do I charge for the "art fee" for 12 photos, should my name and copyright be included?" I know some very popular professional storm chasers/weather photographers, and then let the news use there photos for free, as long as ...

Top 50 recent answers are included